A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing Nature
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lens advice, please



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 2nd 05, 02:19 PM
Kate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lens advice, please

I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that seemed
to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that someone
here might be able to help.

I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few
months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas), together with a
75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I find
that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
with the subject I am having to crop the image, after resampling. I
then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body,
would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?

Many thanks
Kate


  #2  
Old April 2nd 05, 03:36 PM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kate wrote:
I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that seemed
to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that someone
here might be able to help.

I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few
months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas)


It's a good one. Don't feel bad about the choice.

, together with a
75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I find
that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
with the subject I am having to crop the image,


Is this due to not being able to focus close enough or not being able to
get close enough to the subject? I think this is where you need to focus
your attention. You want to be able to take advantage of the entire sensor.
If you need to crop you are dumbing down your camera.

I don't think you have a quality issue with either the body or the lens.

after resampling. I
then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body,
would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?

Many thanks
Kate


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


  #3  
Old April 2nd 05, 03:38 PM
paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kate wrote:

I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few
months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas), together with a
75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I find
that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
with the subject I am having to crop the image, after resampling. I
then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
aberrations.



If you have to crop, then a longer lens should certainly help. Are you
certain it is lack of sharpness in the lens? Sharpening is usually
needed for all digital images. Noise might not be as bad as it looks on
screen when printed, there are software solutions for the chromatic
abberation & noise reduction. It's possible you could get a little
better results shooting raw with dcraw converter can be a little less
antialiasing softness added (but more noise).


It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body,



I don't think that body is hurting you, unless you have several thousand
more to spend for full frame. You will be able to tell the difference in
a better lens even at 6MP. If your lens is soft, more MP won't help.


would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?



I'm getting much better results with a much better telephoto on a Nikon
D70. Mine was a more dramatic change though from a $350 28-200 3.5-5.6
which is not sharp at 200 & has bad bokeh with all but the softest
backgrounds to a $1,600 70-200 2.8 VR. Then a 2x teleconverter turns
that into a 400/5.6 & a +2 diopter lets it do macro. It is nice to have
the option of f/2.8 without the teleconverter & the lens is good enough
quality to be doubled in zoom. The blur is beautifully soft and it is
definitely sharper.
  #4  
Old April 2nd 05, 07:54 PM
Kate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Kate wrote:
I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that
seemed
to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that
someone
here might be able to help.

I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a
few
months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas)


It's a good one. Don't feel bad about the choice.

, together with a
75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I
find
that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
with the subject I am having to crop the image,


Is this due to not being able to focus close enough or not being
able to get close enough to the subject? I think this is where you
need to focus your attention. You want to be able to take advantage
of the entire sensor. If you need to crop you are dumbing down your
camera.

I don't think you have a quality issue with either the body or
the lens.

after resampling. I
then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon
body,
would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?

Many thanks
Kate


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in
the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have
set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus,
using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able
to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak
up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but
missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but
with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in
focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to
spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique
that is at fault.

Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only
removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften
the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode
and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with
black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much
improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot
mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to
the CF card.

Thank you again
Kate









  #5  
Old April 2nd 05, 09:44 PM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kate wrote:

.. The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. ..



I do feel for you. I have the same problem, but I am not yet ready to
spend the kind of money I would need to get a lens long enough and fast
enough to get to job done.

Your primary problem is you need to crop too much. Your suggested
solutions will not help enough to be worth the cost. You are going to be
spending a 2 or more thousand £. to get what you need.





--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


  #6  
Old April 3rd 05, 05:19 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kate wrote:

The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.


Have you considered using a teleconverter? B&H carries them:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ar&A=search&Q=
You'll lose light using one and your autofocus may not function.
Personally, I almost never use autofocus with a long lens anyway. Quite
a bit cheaper than buying another lens though.

Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only
removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften
the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode
and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with
black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much
improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot
mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to
the CF card.


Paint Shop Pro 9 has a Digital Camera Noise Removal filter that works
wonders. It does take some skill to use the filter properly. I do have
..pdfs on both DCNR and the Chromatic Aberration Removal filter if you
decide to download the PSP9 demo. They're rather large, as .pdfs usually
are, but I could email them to you if you wanted to see them.


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

  #7  
Old April 3rd 05, 05:19 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kate wrote:

The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.


Have you considered using a teleconverter? B&H carries them:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ar&A=search&Q=
You'll lose light using one and your autofocus may not function.
Personally, I almost never use autofocus with a long lens anyway. Quite
a bit cheaper than buying another lens though.

Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only
removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften
the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode
and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with
black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much
improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot
mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to
the CF card.


Paint Shop Pro 9 has a Digital Camera Noise Removal filter that works
wonders. It does take some skill to use the filter properly. I do have
..pdfs on both DCNR and the Chromatic Aberration Removal filter if you
decide to download the PSP9 demo. They're rather large, as .pdfs usually
are, but I could email them to you if you wanted to see them.


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

  #8  
Old April 3rd 05, 12:46 PM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kate" wrote in
:



The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in
the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have
set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus,
using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able
to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak
up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but
missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but
with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in
focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to
spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique
that is at fault.



The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is typical
of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an aperture
of f11 or f16.

Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is reduced
in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase. Small
errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way.

The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become even
slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using a
tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems:

1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be able
to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get more
light on your subject.

2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO, it
may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which will
increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest setting ISO
within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher. But
this means the shutter speed may remain slow...

And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere :-(. Trust
me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that you
can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially with
extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more natural-
looking light...

At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust autofocus.
The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so small
that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background. Go
with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of Field
Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus (another fun
thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this).

As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension tubes
will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just under
2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the image
quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes - however,
they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the aperture
another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with every
lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch on
macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes.

Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness
channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust contrast
only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different colors,
and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all. View
the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos' appear,
you're going too far, so back off some.

Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about
blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in different
image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to camera, and
some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance.

Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the
worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median command in
Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the color
where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median *that*
instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the color
it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of your
image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like dark
grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt key to
*Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most
detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert key
areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So what
happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas with the
History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point.

That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps. Good
luck!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
  #9  
Old April 3rd 05, 12:46 PM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kate" wrote in
:



The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in
the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have
set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus,
using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able
to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak
up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but
missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but
with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in
focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to
spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique
that is at fault.



The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is typical
of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an aperture
of f11 or f16.

Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is reduced
in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase. Small
errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way.

The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become even
slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using a
tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems:

1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be able
to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get more
light on your subject.

2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO, it
may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which will
increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest setting ISO
within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher. But
this means the shutter speed may remain slow...

And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere :-(. Trust
me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that you
can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially with
extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more natural-
looking light...

At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust autofocus.
The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so small
that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background. Go
with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of Field
Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus (another fun
thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this).

As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension tubes
will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just under
2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the image
quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes - however,
they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the aperture
another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with every
lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch on
macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes.

Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness
channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust contrast
only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different colors,
and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all. View
the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos' appear,
you're going too far, so back off some.

Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about
blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in different
image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to camera, and
some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance.

Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the
worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median command in
Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the color
where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median *that*
instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the color
it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of your
image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like dark
grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt key to
*Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most
detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert key
areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So what
happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas with the
History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point.

That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps. Good
luck!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
  #10  
Old April 3rd 05, 07:26 PM
Kate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
.8...
"Kate" wrote in
:



As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have
been concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I
can
get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are
but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper
in
the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I
have
set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the
focus,
using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be
able
to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then
sneak
up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much),
but
missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field,
but
with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak
in
focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want
to
spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my
technique
that is at fault.



The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is
typical
of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an
aperture
of f11 or f16.

Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is
reduced
in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase.
Small
errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way.

The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become
even
slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using
a
tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems:

1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be
able
to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get
more
light on your subject.

2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO,
it
may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which
will
increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest
setting ISO
within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher.
But
this means the shutter speed may remain slow...

And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere :-(.
Trust
me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that
you
can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially
with
extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more
natural-
looking light...

At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust
autofocus.
The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so
small
that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background.
Go
with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of
Field
Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus
(another fun
thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this).

As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension
tubes
will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just
under
2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the
image
quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes -
however,
they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the
aperture
another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with
every
lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch
on
macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes.

Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness
channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust
contrast
only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different
colors,
and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all.
View
the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos'
appear,
you're going too far, so back off some.

Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about
blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in
different
image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to
camera, and
some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance.

Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the
worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median
command in
Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the
color
where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median
*that*
instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the
color
it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of
your
image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like
dark
grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt
key to
*Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most
detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert
key
areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So
what
happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas
with the
History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point.

That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps.
Good
luck!


- Al.


To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net


Lots of helpful advice and useful suggestions, so thanks for that.

I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode)
and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I
notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or
lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata,
the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is
compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny
conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an
instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like
to use a high shutter speed if possible. As I mentioned earlier, they
tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in
the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need
for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when
they come to rest. With the bird photography, I did consider getting
some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered
by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens
sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less
demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds!

Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper
than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I
have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses
with better optics.

Angela : thanks for the tip about Paint Shop Pro. I already have
Photoshop v.6, Photoshop Elements v.2, and Corel PhotoPaint vs.9 and
11 and don`t know if I could stand having yet another program! I have
been looking on line for plug-ins and stand-alone software that deals
with jpeg artefacts and noise, and am trying some demo versions.
Still, as a perfectionist, I feel as if I should get it right in the
first place without having to make extensive corrections. As regards
using manual focus, I am not sure that I would have the time : with
odonata and birds you have to seize the moment sometimes.

Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and
sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that
shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless
of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it
worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject? What I was hoping to achieve was to almost
fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a
dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away.
Am I asking for too much on a limited budget? I think Joseph is
probably right when he says that having to crop so much is my main
problem, and I gather that he does not think the 100-400mm lens I
suggested earlier would be sufficient? Even with a teleconverter,
Joseph? And thanks for your sympathy BTW :-)

I shall persevere and hope to get it right before the odonata season
starts in May, but any further advice would be much appreciated.

Regards
Kate








 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! Bill Gillooly General Equipment For Sale 2 February 20th 05 07:43 AM
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! Bill Gillooly Large Format Equipment For Sale 2 February 20th 05 07:43 AM
Nikon D70 + Auto Mode Anirudh Digital SLR Cameras 10 February 1st 05 08:32 PM
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Copy/Macro Lens for this camera Mr. Bill Large Format Equipment For Sale 0 February 16th 04 08:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.